ENG: The Resian lexicon contains a number of heteronyms that is by no means insignificant for the dialect geography of the Resian area. As the diachronic process of substitution of one lexeme by another is notably hard to explain with purely linguistic means and much, at least from a linguistic point of view, seems to depend on coincidence, statistics is called upon in order to obtain a framework that can deal with apparent coincidence.
The binominal distribution of the isoglosses shows that of the 14 possible isogloss types the attested frequence of occurrence of only six of these types cannot be the result of mere coincidence. This is additional proof for the basic division into a western (San Giorgio/Gniva) and an eastern (Oseacco/Stolvizza) dialect group, but also shows that the varieties of San Giorgio, Oseacco and Stolvizza are distinct dialect-geographical entities. The fact that Gniva does not emerge as a distinct entity on this account may be correlated with the marriage pattern that prevailed in this village during the period 1745–1905. On the other hand, the basic division proposed by Baudouin de Courtenay 1875 (113–114) into three groups (San Giorgio; Gniva/Stolvizza; Oseacco) is refuted by this analysis.
With respect to etymology it appears that the presence of Romance loans is significantly higher in the westernmost village of San Giorgio than in the easternmost village of Stolvizza. The Romance influence on Resian, however, does not seem to be the cause for the dialect-geographical division of the area.